Opposition Senator Dorothy Lightbourne raised strong objection to the fingerprinting of juveniles under the Fingerprints Act at last Thursday’s sitting of the joint select committee examining proposed amendments to the Act.

“No matter how naughty and bad they are,” juveniles are not normally fingerprinted, Lightbourne said.

She was supported by fellow Jamaica Labour Party member of the committee, Abe Dabdoub, who said that the point was that, “we’ve always treated juveniles differently and . perhaps we ought to look at that in deciding how they are treated under this Act.”

They also questioned why the traffic, family and juvenile courts were being brought under the Act.

According to spokeswoman for the Parliamentary Counsel’s office, Michelle Daley-Tomlinson, this was provided for precisely because juveniles would, in fact, be treated differently and because permission is required to fingerprint anyone under age 18.

She said that the fingerprinting would likely be done in the Juvenile Court and that there was a further amendment to the Act, prohibiting juveniles’ fingerprints from being taken without their consent. There would be a need to go to the a Juvenile Court to get that consent.

But Dr Peter Phillips, chairman of the committee, apparently sharing Dabdoub’s concern, said: “That’s not the point he is pushing. How did traffic and family courts become included?”

Daley-Tomlinson explained: “The Traffic Court is in the existing Act. We had to expand the jurisdiction to take into account the taking of fingerprints of juveniles which may be ordered by the Juvenile Court or the Family Court, depending on the circumstances.”

Lightbourne, however, insisted that she did not support the taking of fingerprints of juveniles.

But Daley-Tomlinson explained further: “The taking of the fingerprints of juveniles would only be done on the order of the court.”

She said that currently, both courts can order the fingerprinting of juveniles, and it is only being expanded to this Act.

At this point, Phillips asked: “Senator Lightbourne, what is your concern?”

Lightbourne replied: “My concern is that we ought not to be taking the fingerprints of juveniles at all.”

However, Kurt Rattray, of the Legal Reform Department of Ministry of National Security, advised the committee that the procedure was not unusual.

He said that in other jurisdictions there were provisions for the taking of minors’ fingerprints, but there were also safeguards, including the need for a children’s court order.

“But, once you are dealing with a possible commission of crime and children are involved, you have to have some tracking or investigating mechanism, and so it is not unusual by any means,” Rattray said.

Dr Phillips, who is also the national security minister, pointed out that there were many situations now where people below the age of 18 were suspected of, and arrested for the commission of crimes, including murder.

“Because of the fact that they are children, the protection needs to be greater,” he argued. “But I don’t think we should blind ourselves to the fact that many of the crimes (being committed), and indeed many of the victims, are people within that age range.”

Dabdoub suggested that the question of juveniles be dealt with separately. He said that he had heard nothing about parental responsibility. “I would suspect that any consent that you are seeking. would have my approval, as the parent, and there is nothing here. That’s why I think that the consideration for juveniles should be in a separate act for juveniles and juveniles only.”

Phillips said that he didn’t think that it made sense to have a separate Act just to deal with the Fingerprints Act. “It must be that in dealing with fingerprint legislation you make specific provisions for juveniles and that is what is being done in this Act.